I'm not sure I'd agree that the version of DFSG aj and I are working would allow the "powered by" clause -- atleast not as a binding restriction. In our proposal, the section you quote says nothing about the notices in finished work the way Ian's proposal did. I wouldn't call a produced web page either source o r documentation and it's certainly not the software being executed. Personally, I think it would be a far reach to even call any/all web pages "advertising material". And if it could, under the current wording, I'd change it to be "material offering the software package" or some such thing... Unless Debian *wants* that sort of attribution clause to be DFSG-free.... > This leads me to the following question: The current DFSG doesn't > explicitely rule out postcard-ware nor things like the ZPL attribution > requirement [2]. The new proposals all disallow postcard-ware hence the desire to release a second version of the DFSG... > requirements, but specifically allow notice requirements. This leads but in a very restricted sense... > me to the conclusion that notice requirements are accepted by the > common interpretation of the current DFSG (contrary to > postcard-ware-like requirements). Is that correct ? I supposed it could be argued, in letter.. but they seem unacceptable in the spirt of the DFSG. -- ========================================================================= * http://benham.net/index.html <>< * * -------------------- * -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- ---------------* * Darren Benham * Version: 3.1 * * <gecko@benham.net> * GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++* * KC7YAQ * E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K- w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- * * Debian Developer * PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++ * * <gecko@debian.org> * G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+ * * -------------------- * ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ---------------* =========================================================================
Attachment:
pgpzYym9kqyBc.pgp
Description: PGP signature